Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965AP457
Venkatesam, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, in O. S. No. 8 of 1958. The facts necessary for the determination of the questions arising in this case are as follows : - The plaintiff J. Kuppanna Chetty, Ambati Ramayya Chetty and Company of Kadiri, is a firm carrying on business as groundnut and mundy merchants. They took on lease a groundnut decorticating factory at Kadiri, known by the name of Vittal Seshappa Chetty Sons, Groundnut Factory. The factory was under the management of one of the partners, Kuppanna Chetty. Vittan Subbayya Chetty, son of Seshayya Chetty was in arrears of Income-tax relating to the year 1951-52 and 1952-53 to the extent of Rs. 20,921-10-0 and Rs. 9,035-4-0, respectively. The Income-tax Officer issued a certificate under S. 46 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to the Collector of Bellary for realisation of the said arrears. The Tahsildar, Kadiri, was directed by the Collector to attach the said facto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006AP182; 2006(2)ALT1
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The Petitioner filed O.S.No.20 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil judge, at Bodhan, against the respondent, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. She pleaded that she is the daughter of the respondent. In his written-statement, the respondent disputed the very relationship, apart from denying the other allegations, made by the petitioner. The trial Court framed an independent issue, touching upon the relationship. The petitioner filed I.A.No.233 of 2005 for reframing of the said issue. The application was resisted by the respondent. Through order dt.5-10-2005, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application. Hence, this revision2. Sri Balraj Bodhankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue, which was framed by the trial Court, is in such a form, that it would require the petitioner herein to prove the negative. He contends that since the denial, which gave rise to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ALD496
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit against the revision petitioner for recovery of money. During the course of evidence, respondents filed a petition purportedly under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to receive a true copy of the letter of subrogation executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1st plaintiff dated 8-8-1997. Rejecting the objection of the revision petitioner, the trial Court allowed that petition by the order under revision. Hence this revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the trial Court without keeping in view the fact that an insurer cannot without obtaining assignment from the insured file a suit against 3rd party for recovery of the money, erroneously allowed the petition, when the existence of the document sought to be received was not even mentioned during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses of the revision petitioner. It is his cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(2)ALD593
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. MamataEducational Society, Khammam ('Mamata Society' for short), filed Writ Petition No.22675 of 1998 seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent-NTR University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh ('University of Health Sciences' for short), in denying admission of 100 students who have come out successful and secured ranks in the EAMCET, into the first year MDBS course in Mamata Society College for the academic year 1998-99, is illegal and arbitrary.2. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 11-11-1998 directing the University of Health Sciences to allot candidates to the college without reference to the letter of the Government of India dated 7-7-1998. It was also directed that as the college has already paid affiliation fees for the academic year 1998-99, the University of Health Sciences shall consider the same and take appropriate action.3. The Medical Council of India, which was not a party to Writ Petition No.22635 of 1998...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(6)ALT738
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, the question that arises for consideration is whether mere seniority alone is the criteria or is there any eligibility criteria, apart from the seniority in a particular cadre, for the purpose of promotion to the higher post ?2. Petitioners were all initially appointed as Reserve Sub-Inspectors (RSIs) of Category-3 of Class I of A.P. Police Subordinate Service. The RSIs are entitled to be appointed as Sub-Inspectors (Civil) in Category-1 of Class 1, against 5% of the vacancies earmarked for them. The RSIs, on transfer, are put on probation and sent for 6 months training. The RSIs, who had put in 5 years and more service in Class I Category-3 posts of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules (for short 'Special Rules'), on conversion as SIs (Civil) and after completion of probation and training, according to them, are entitled for being promoted to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil) i.e. Category 4 of A.P. Police Servic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD209; 2007(3)ALT287
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Repeated attempts by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to bring about a unified cadre of teachers in government, mandal parishad and zilla parishad schools have met with little success. The last such effort, prior to Act 27 of 2005, which met its Waterloo was when the Rules, in G.O.Ms. No. 538 dated 20-11-1998, were declared ultravires the Presidential Order and were quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in M. Kesavulu v. State of A.P. : 2003(6)ALD522 Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench in M. Kesavulu', the A.P. United Teachers Federation filed S.L.P. Nos. 7496-7510 of 2005 and the Supreme Court, by order dated 25-10-2004, stayed the contempt proceedings initiated pursuant to the order of the Division Bench. The State of A.P. also preferred S.L.P. Nos. 22597-22612 22597-22612 of 2004 and, while granting stay of the contempt proceedings, these S.L.Ps. were directed to be tagged along with S.L.P. Nos. 7496-7510 of 2004. All the S.L.Ps. are stil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(5)ALD661; 2007(4)ALT509
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Sri Bala Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Tallamudunurupadu Village of Tadepalligudem of West Godavari District (hereafter called, the subject temple) is the religious institution registered and classified under Section 6(b) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity). Historically, it is about 200 years old temple established by Sriman Raghavacharyulu, and statedly temple is being managed by his successors. After coming into force of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2002 (A.P. Act No. 27 of 2002), the respondent herein by proceedings in R.C.No.B5/2006, dated 17-06-2006, decided that Smt Andal Raghavan - petitioner herein; is member of founder's family. Be it noted, by reason of Section 17 of the Act as amended by Amendment Act No. 27 of 2002, the member of the family of the founder shall be appointed as one of Board of Trustees and under Section 21 (b) of the Act, such member shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ALD136; 2007(3)ALT622
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 161 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The suit was filed for declaration and for perpetual injunction. The learned Judge framed the point for consideration as hereunder.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.Ultimately, the learned Judge returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) with a direction to file the plaint before the Senior Civil Judge's Court having jurisdiction and the intimation of the return of the plaint to be informed to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were directed to file an application before the Court to specify the Court in which the plaintiffs propose to present the plaint after its return.2. Sri T.P. Acharya, learned Counsel representing the appellants would submit that the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religiou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008AP169; 2008(3)ALD582; 2008(3)ALT490
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals are directed against the common order dated 12.11.2007 passed on applications being I.A. Nos. 2554 and 2555 of 2007 in O.S. No. 300 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 CPC, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judge refused to grant interim reliefs sought for by the plaintiff pending disposal of the suit.2. Appellant is the plaintiff and whereas respondents are the defendants in O.S. No. 300 of 2007. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:(a) to declare that the Gift Deed dated 23.03.2005 vide Document No. 1043/2005 registered in the office of SRO - Azampura, Hyderabad is illegal, void and the Plaintiff is not bound by the same.(b) Consequentially to direct the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of suit property to the plaintiff.(c) To grant perpetual injunction restraining the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD297; 2007(2)ALT322
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. The four writ petitions involve common issues. Hence, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. Writ Petition No. 4121 of 2006 has been filed by Smt. K. Anjana Devi and 45 others, who claim to be the purchasers of small extent of land forming part of Survey No. 83 of Raidurg (Panmaktha) village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They claim to have purchased the said extents from the General Power of Attorney holder of the original landowners (hereinafter referred to as declarants).3. W.P. No. 4144 of 2006 has been filed by Omprakash Verma and 43 others, who also claim to be purchasers of small extent of land forming part of Survey No. 83 of Raidurg (Panmaktha) Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the said General Power of Attorney.4. W.P. No. 4141 of 2006 has been filed by Ahmed Abdul Aziz and 14 others, who claim to be the owners of the land of an extent of Acs. 526.07 guntas in Survey No. 83 of Raidurg (Panmaktha...
Tag this Judgment!